Asking for help: Meopta Meostar B1 10 X 42 vs Opticron Aurora BGA VHD 10 x 42 (1 Viewer)

[Gritt]

Hi. New member here.

My Meostar B1 10 X 42 was recently destroyed and I'm looking for a replacement. Lack of CA is what I value most and the B1 had zero.
The Opticron Aurora BGA VHD 10 x 42 is sold out in my country but I have the option of purchasing a B1.1 for the same price a new Aurora would have cost me. I'm hesitant because Meostar 10 X 42 lack in edge clarity.

I'm contemplating ordering the Aurora 1042 from abroad if it has better edge clarity and CA control very similar to a B1/B1.1
Please chime in if you have some experience with both Aurora and Meostar.

 

[chill6x6]

Hi,

So I don't have a later model Meostar to compare BUT....I do have the Aurora in 8X42. I will say it's better than average where CA is concerned. So far of the three binoculars I've compared it to concerning CA...SFL 8X40>Monarch HG 8X42>Aurora 8X42. One advantage I do appreciate is that is Aurora would weigh quite a bit less than the Meostar.

HTH..

 

[Gritt]

Hi,

So I don't have a later model Meostar to compare BUT....I do have the Aurora in 8X42. I will say it's better than average where CA is concerned. So far of the three binoculars I've compared it to concerning CA...SFL 8X40>Monarch HG 8X42>Aurora 8X42. One advantage I do appreciate is that is Aurora would weigh quite a bit less than the Meostar.

HTH..

Thank you. I follow your SFL vs Aurora thread and have for now decided against SFL because of CA. Could you comment on how much of the FOV is sharp in your Aurora?

 

[chill6x6]

So it's a conventional FOV binocular BUT Opticron DOES write in their literature, "delivers a sweet spot so big it will surprise and delight." The FOV is at least as flat as the Monarch HG, maybe a little better. I'd say both are better than average in this regard but neither is a SF/SV/NL. I'd be happy to pay a little more attention to your concerns when I go out Thursday weather permitting.

 

[Gritt]

I know of a dealer nearby that carry SFLs and if you don't mind I would like if you could compare Aurora FOV vs. SFL FOV after your trip Thursday(weather permitting). I do not have access to the Monarch HG but I can compare the SFL with Aurora after you have made your observations.

 

[Rg548]

Meostar 10x42 is a superb bino. Comparable to Ultravid in my opinion.
But Opticron always punch above their price point.
But from memory, (I owned Meostar, and tested Aurora) the Meostar is a better optic...
I found the Aurora to be somewhere near the Conquest, and Kowa Genesis, but cheaper than either of them.
If you want edge clarity.... well that comes at a big price, and I for one, dont really appreciate it.... I always centre what I'm looking at, and so long as the sweet spot is big, say 80% plus, well thats just fine by me.
My HT8x42's are the best Binos I have owned, they are not pin sharp to the edge, but plenty plenty good enough for me.
The centre field picture is jaw droppingly good, and that outer 10-20% does not even factor in it.
Each to their own.

 

[Gritt]

Thank you for your input. The Meostar is very good. The reason I'm looking at the Aurora is because it is lighter than the Meostar B1 I had. I live in a mountainous area in Norway and every gram counts when backpacking up steep mountainsides with skis or on foot.

I found the Aurora to be somewhere near the Conquest, and Kowa Genesis, but cheaper than either of them.

I value CA control very much. Can you recall if the Aurora was better or worse than the Genesis?

 

[Rg548]

Thank you for your input. The Meostar is very good. The reason I'm looking at the Aurora is because it is lighter than the Meostar B1 I had. I live in a mountainous area in Norway and every gram counts when backpacking up steep mountainsides with skis or on foot.

I value CA control very much. Can you recall if the Aurora was better or worse than the Genesis?

From memory the Genesis was exceptional for CA control, but the 44mm versions are heavy... the 33mm not so much.

 

[tenex]

One can't help being curious... how were you able to "destroy" a MeoStar, and are you sure the warranty won't cover it?

 

[jring]

Hi,

first of all, welcome to birdforum!

And thanks for the great images... a vacation in Norway sounds even better now...

Regarding the bins... With your preferences in mind I would look for used (former) alphas too... EDG or Zeiss FL or Zeiss SF come to mind... all are known for great CA control, the EDG also sports the best field flatteners and bulletproof build and mechanics, Zeiss SF has a super wide field and also good field flattening. Both might need a bit of patience, luck and maybe saving up, but you will probably not feel the urge to upgrade anytime soon...
A used pair of FL 10x42 on the other hand should definitely be available for the price of your (good) new options, but alas, no field flattening.

PS: chill6x6 has posted a comparion of his Aurora and SFL 8x pairs here...

SFL vs. Aurora...

I have been selling a bunch of binoculars lately and was thinking it was time to slightly reverse course! This time I went to at least for me, left field and purchased an Opticron Aurora BGA VHD 8X42(why oh why does Opticron have to use SO many letters?). So here's a short review and a...

www.birdforum.net

Joachim

 

[jackjack]

CA diffrence between Nikon monarch HG and Opticron Aurora

center

MHG / AURORA



Edge

MHG (top)
AURORA (bottom


Aurora has very significant CA diffrence between center and edge. In center, It's CA control is about the same level of Swaro EL, NL. really top contender.
better then EDG in the Center CA

(aurora / edg)

but about 85 ~ 90% of the FOV, It shows vivid blue CA that really can be botering.
like you see at the second photo.

So total amount of CA will be more in Aurora because it have too much CA on the edge.
but if you consider CA only in the center Aurora will outpreform most bino under 2000$

plus, as you also can see on the second photo, edge sharpness is significantly better on the Aurora then MHG in 8x42s

Aurora have approx 88 ~ 90% of sweetspot but MHG only have approx 80 ~ 82%

and MHG has more vignetting (light falloffs) at the edges then Aurora.

it's strange that all of the Nikon field flatteners I seen has some vignetting at the edges. HGL 10x32, 8x42 has it, SE 10x42, 12x50 has it, MHG 8x30 8x42 has it. EDG 8x42 has it... ( didn't see WX yet)

 

[jackjack]

Thank you for your input. The Meostar is very good. The reason I'm looking at the Aurora is because it is lighter than the Meostar B1 I had. I live in a mountainous area in Norway and every gram counts when backpacking up steep mountainsides with skis or on foot.

I value CA control very much. Can you recall if the Aurora was better or worse than the Genesis?

I have genesis 10x33. can't write comparison with Aurora 8x42 because it is totaly diffrent apature.
but when I compare Aurora 8x42 and Genesis 10x33, Aurora has bit better central CA (maybe due to less magnification) but much more CA on the edges.

 

[ArchStanton]

I have genesis 10x33. can't write comparison with Aurora 8x42 because it is totaly diffrent apature.
but when I compare Aurora 8x42 and Genesis 10x33, Aurora has bit better central CA (maybe due to less magnification) but much more CA on the edges.

The Aurora looks like a top choice at the 1k price range. Thank you for the comparison.

 

[jackjack]

The Aurora looks like a top choice at the 1k price range. Thank you for the comparison.

BUT. it's build quality is at the bottom of 1k.
I would say, it have 1.3 ~ 1.5k optics but 500 ~ 700k build.
Even Kowa BD2 has better overall build quality the Aurora.

 

[ArchStanton]

BUT. it's build quality is at the bottom of 1k.
I would say, it have 1.3 ~ 1.5k optics but 500 ~ 700k build.
Even Kowa BD2 has better overall build quality the Aurora.

That’s too bad because I’ve read many positive comments on the Auroras. I haven’t had a chance to look at these binoculars in person but have a pair of Opticron Oregon 8x42’s, and the build quality is pretty darn good for under $200 US. I did look through a few pairs of Kowa BDII XD’s and was impressed with the clarity, brightness, and build quality. Cheers!

 

[Gritt]

One can't help being curious... how were you able to "destroy" a MeoStar, and are you sure the warranty won't cover it?

Too embaresing to elaborate on.

 

[Gritt]

Hi,

first of all, welcome to birdforum!

And thanks for the great images... a vacation in Norway sounds even better now...

Regarding the bins... With your preferences in mind I would look for used (former) alphas too... EDG or Zeiss FL or Zeiss SF come to mind... all are known for great CA control, the EDG also sports the best field flatteners and bulletproof build and mechanics, Zeiss SF has a super wide field and also good field flattening. Both might need a bit of patience, luck and maybe saving up, but you will probably not feel the urge to upgrade anytime soon...
A used pair of FL 10x42 on the other hand should definitely be available for the price of your (good) new options, but alas, no field flattening.

PS: chill6x6 has posted a comparion of his Aurora and SFL 8x pairs here...

SFL vs. Aurora...

I have been selling a bunch of binoculars lately and was thinking it was time to slightly reverse course! This time I went to at least for me, left field and purchased an Opticron Aurora BGA VHD 8X42(why oh why does Opticron have to use SO many letters?). So here's a short review and a...

www.birdforum.net

Joachim

Thank you for your input and I'm glad you liked the photos. They are from an area rich in birds of prey and I love observing them there. I have considered used alphas but have decided on "new car smell." 30 year warranty(Aurora) is a pluss.

 

[Gritt]

Too embaresing to elaborate on.

CA diffrence between Nikon monarch HG and Opticron Aurora

center

MHG / AURORA

View attachment 1570248

Edge

MHG (top)
AURORA (bottom
View attachment 1570249

Aurora has very significant CA diffrence between center and edge. In center, It's CA control is about the same level of Swaro EL, NL. really top contender.
better then EDG in the Center CA

(aurora / edg)
View attachment 1570250
but about 85 ~ 90% of the FOV, It shows vivid blue CA that really can be botering.
like you see at the second photo.

So total amount of CA will be more in Aurora because it have too much CA on the edge.
but if you consider CA only in the center Aurora will outpreform most bino under 2000$

plus, as you also can see on the second photo, edge sharpness is significantly better on the Aurora then MHG in 8x42s

Aurora have approx 88 ~ 90% of sweetspot but MHG only have approx 80 ~ 82%

and MHG has more vignetting (light falloffs) at the edges then Aurora.

it's strange that all of the Nikon field flatteners I seen has some vignetting at the edges. HGL 10x32, 8x42 has it, SE 10x42, 12x50 has it, MHG 8x30 8x42 has it. EDG 8x42 has it... ( didn't see WX yet)

Thank you, jackjack. It must have taken you some time to set up that comparison!

but if you consider CA only in the center Aurora will outpreform most bino under 2000$

Making a decision on a new pair of binos is difficult but I find Auroras center CA control to look good. Edge CA might be a problem in bright snowy days. Another data point to consider.

 

[jackjack]

Thank you, jackjack. It must have taken you some time to set up that comparison!

Making a decision on a new pair of binos is difficult but I find Auroras center CA control to look good. Edge CA might be a problem in bright snowy days. Another data point to consider.

But please consider, that amount of CA at the edge of opticron aurora is cannot just be defined as 'much then center, it's amount is amongthe most vivid CA I ever seen, and also it have more bluish spectrum (sort of ultramarine coloring) then other binoculaer's purple CA so it can be more bothering to eyes.

 

[Gritt]

But please consider, that amount of CA at the edge of opticron aurora is cannot just be defined as 'much then center, it's amount is amongthe most vivid CA I ever seen, and also it have more bluish spectrum (sort of ultramarine coloring) then other binoculaer's purple CA so it can be more bothering to eyes.

Yes, your picture made it very clear that CA is very much present at FOV edge and it looks vivid. It reminds me of the colour I have seen in a lower tier Zeiss I once tried. In one review CA was described as only a merest trace of CA was detected at the field stop. To my eyes it appears to be more significant than that.

I fully accept that I can not get alfa glass in the Aurora but this amount of CA might be too much for me. CA is maddening to my brain

Thank you again for providing pictures, jackjack. One picture really can say more than a thousand words.